https://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00NCBARBLOGhttps://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngNCBARBLOG2018-03-23 12:18:542018-03-23 12:18:54Sunday Best: Catch Up On the Week's Top NCBarBlog Posts

https://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00NCBARBLOGhttps://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngNCBARBLOG2018-03-16 15:28:592018-03-16 15:28:59Sunday Best: Catch Up on the Week's Top NCBarBlog Posts

One of the most important functions of antitrust law is fighting against abuse of dominance or monopolization. Companies with high market shares and strong market power can exclude incumbents or potential entrants. Although national legislation and decisions of national authorities may differ, abusive behavior of a dominant firm in a given country should be deemed a violation of antitrust laws in all territories where the relevant company is dominant.

The near-similarity of antitrust laws throughout the world allows multinational companies to easily comply with the antitrust laws of countries in which they operate. However, this also generates a significant risk because such companies can face antitrust investigations in more than one country, due to a single decision or behavior.

Nonetheless, not only do market conditions or local strategies of the multinationals differ from one territory to another, so does antitrust enforcement. Those differences may stem from the willingness and determination of the antitrust authority to stop such abuses, market conditions due to the local competitors, the lack of relevant laws, or even implications on relations between countries.

Art MacCord is a patent attorney with 38 years of experience. He keeps an eye on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office for new rules and practice tips of interest to intellectual property attorneys. Please click on the links below for the most recent updates.

A recent Fourth Circuit decision held that alleged statements from a supervisor that included, “We don’t want women working in the morning” and “I don’t want three women on my schedule,” were not sufficient to support a plaintiff’s claims of discrimination or harassment in violation of Title VII. In the unpublished opinion issued October 10, 2017, the Fourth Circuit also stated that placing the plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Process (“PIP”) did not constitute an adverse action that could support her discrimination or retaliation claims. The panel, consisting of Judges Niemeyer, Traxler, and Keenan, affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer.

Check out the NCBA social media channels for updates from the ongoing attorney exchange to Japan led by the International Law & Practice Section. The delegation landed in Tokyo earlier this week and has a packed schedule of meetings with law firms, government officials, businesses and bar organizations. In between, they’re taking in all the Japanese culture, food and landmarks they can get.

Plus, delegates will be writing and sharing daily haikus with us. To see photos of the trip so far click here. Follow them on Twitter at #NCBAinJapan.

https://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ncbajapan-FB.jpg312820NCBARBLOGhttps://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngNCBARBLOG2017-10-12 16:12:082017-10-12 16:12:08Follow the NCBA Attorney Exchange Program In Japan On Social Media

It is a good time to conduct an internal audit of I-9s because inspections and fines have not gone away and a new I-9 edition was published recently. An administrative law judge in the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Office fined a staffing company $276,000 in June 2017, reduced from the $367,000 originally imposed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While this is less than the highest fine of $605,250 imposed in 2015 on an events planning company for incomplete I-9s (there were only four missing I-9’s out of 339 employees), the reason for the staffing company’s fine was a failure to produce the I-9s to ICE within the three days of its request. So, Rule No. 1 taken from this latest large ICE fine: Have complete I-9s ready and available for inspection at all times.

Second, use the latest Form I-9. A new I-9 Form went into effect on July 17, 2017. The Jan. 1, 2107 version can be used until Sept. 17, 2017. After that, employers must only use the July 17, 2017 iteration. Rule No. 2: Never rely upon pre-printed I-9 forms. Always go to the website and download the latest version.

https://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00NCBARBLOGhttps://ncbarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngNCBARBLOG2017-09-12 12:58:172017-09-12 12:58:17Employers: Those Form I-9s Can Cost You If You're Not Staying On Top of Them

The majority of property tax appeals concern arguments over the value of real estate, such as commercial retail buildings, commercial office buildings, multi-family buildings, and industrial facilities. However, real estate is not the only type of property that is taxable in North Carolina for property tax purposes. Business personal property is also taxable for property tax purposes. The following Q&A outlines the basics of business personal property taxation.

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process used in lieu of formal procedures, where a neutral mediator attempts to help the parties come to a mutually acceptable agreement. The mediator can facilitate negotiations, review positions, exchange offers, point out the best and worst possible outcomes, etc. It is mostly an informal process, but typically follows a general pattern of holding an opening session where all parties and their lawyers are present and then holding separate caucuses.

Lawyers should prepare for mediation ahead of time, but not overdo it. While all mediations are different and rely some on the style and skill of the mediator for a successful mediation, proper preparation by the lawyers for the parties sets the table for a successful, or unsuccessful, mediation.

Defendant–mother appealed from a custody modification order that set aside a prior custody modification order. Because the trial court took no evidence at the hearing and failed to make the proper analysis before modifying the prior custody order, the Court of Appeals vacated the custody modification order and remanded the case to the trial court.

There are two issues to note in this appeal: First, the Court of Appeals does not comment upon or engage in any analysis of whether the orders in the case are temporary or permanent in nature. The Court seems to assume that the orders are permanent, because it cites the two-step modification analysis for a permanent order (substantial change in circumstances/best interests). Second Judge Dillon dissents in part from the Court’s opinion concerning which of the parties’ prior custody orders should be in effect pending further hearings on the matter.

Like Us On Facebook

Find a Post Here Or Use Search Above

Find a Post Here Or Use Search Above

2018 North Carolina Bar Association and NCBarBlog. All Rights Reserved. Views and opinions expressed in articles published herein are the authors’ only and are not to be attributed to the North Carolina Bar Association or any of its sections, divisions or committees unless expressly stated. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all citations and quotations. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to the author and site with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.